End-user Research in PMCII
PowerMatching City
Carina Wiekens, PhD
End-user research in PowerMatching City II
(june 2013 – june 2014)
Today:
Results of quantitative and qualitative research
• Wiekens, C. J., Grootel, M., van, & Steinmeijer, S. (in press). Experiences and behaviors of end-users in a smart grid: The influence of values,
attitudes, trust, and several types of demand side management. • Presentation ‘Behave 2014’ in Oxford.
decentralized energy sources
(PV and micro CHP),
hybrid heat pumps, smart
appliances, smart meters,
and in-home displays
PMCII
2 Energy Services:
End-user research in PMC
Smart Costs Savings
Feedback on Costs
Together More Sustainable
Feedback on percentage of
consumed energy that is
produced locally
3 types of Control:
End-user research in PMC
Automatic
hybrid heat pump or micro CHPSmart
washing machineQuestions:
End-user research in PMC
(1) How do end-users experience several types of
control (automatic, smart, manual)
and
feedback
(costs vs. sustainability)?
(2) Do end-users shift their consumption to off-peak hours?
(3) Which kind of feedback and control is effective
and for
whom
?
pro-environmental values, egoistic values, pro-social values
Theoretical model:
End-user research in PMC
BEHAVIOR
VALUES
ATTITUDES
INTENTION
Time 1
Time 2
Time 3 Time 3
Timing:
End-user research in PMC
Initial test (Time 1) Questionnaire Time 2 Concluding test (Time 3) Introduction Energy Services Participant Session 1 Participant Session 2 June 2013 July 2013 Aug 2013 Sept 2013 Oct 2013 Nov 2013 Dec 2013 Jan 2014 Feb 2014 Mar 2014 Apr 2014 May 2014 June 2014Initial test (Time 1) Time 2
Concluding test (Time 3) Results
Introduction Energy Services Participant Session 1
Planned research:
End-user research in PMC
10 1. Pretest: - Values - Representativeness PMC-group (reference: Essent-customers) - Expectancies of Energy Services2. Time II - First experiences - Behavior
Reality:
Results: 2. Time II:- Experiences: little bit later… - Behavioral data: missing data,
smart washing machines were not installed
1 2 3 4 5 6
Expectancies First experiences TMS SCS
• Reliability of Energy Services was judged as ‘low’;
• “My energy monitor/heat-pump /micro-CHP does not work”.
• SCS more positive than TMS; • Energy services ‘important’ and
‘sustainable’;
• End-users were positive about the project
=> What do you do?
End-user research in PMC
End-user research in PMC
Expectancies more positive than first experiences
Do you recognize this?
Because…..
But…
Reliability low?
Do you recognize this?
Because…..
But…
“My Energy Monitor does not work properly.”
Do you recognize this?
Because…..
But…
Yes
Yes
Automatic and Smart Appliances switch on at expensive /not sustainable
moments
=> Extra measurement: Do end-users believe that the
problems are solved?
End-user research in PMC
Adjustments:
=> Are there problems with the system?
=> Communication
End-user research in PMC
Plan B:
Vision on the project does not change,
focus of the research does
Results concluding test and second session
1 2 3 4 5 6Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
TMS SCS
Attitudes towards Energy Services:
Results concluding test and second session
• High correlation between T1, T2, T3
• Even though participants valued Sustainability more than Costs: SCS more positive than TMS
“Feedback in Euros is more tangible than
feedback in ‘leaves’”
Attitudes towards Energy Services:
Also, SCS more actively involved :
- looked at their monitor more often - shifted regular appliances more often
Results concluding test and second session
1 2 3 4 5 6Time 1 Time 2 Time 3
Automatic Smart Manual
Attitudes towards automatic, smart, manual control:
Results concluding test and second session
• Automatic and smart DSM were most popular (least effort);
• Smart DSM was judged most positive, because it offers the opportunity to “take back control into your own hands”;
Attitudes towards automatic, smart, manual control:
• Important boundary condition: trust;
• Shifting demand manually is most rewarding;
• Participants perceived their return of the energy service from the three methods of control as rather equal.
Summary research results:
1) Feedback on cost reduction is valued most;
2) Automatic and smart control are most popular, but manually controlling appliances is more rewarding;
3) Experiences and behavior of end-users depended on trust in both technology (ICT infrastructure and connected appliances) and the participating parties.
Other research results:
1) End-users preferred to consume self-produced energy,
even when it is not the most efficient strategy to follow; 2) We were not succesful in establishing a community. Trust was
relatively low between end-users:
3) Once trust is violated, it is very hard to win it back;
“What if my neighbour decides to use my sustainably generated energy for his Jacuzzi?’”
4) Two thirds would choose Smart Cost Savings now.
•
ALWAYS stay in close contact with the end-users!
•
Be flexible, which can be difficult when the project is not
your main focus, but your (PhD)research is;
•
Communicate, communicate, communicate:
“When things go wrong, communicate that things go wrong”;
•
Experience with many different research methods is useful.
Lessons learned from the research proces:
Initial test Test Concluding test Participant session II Results Participant session I Manually shifting appliances requires effort, but it feels good!’
I value the community, but what if my neighbour
uses my sustainable energy for his Jacuzzi?
Feedback in Euro’s is more tangible than feedback in
‘leaves’
“I do prefer feedback on sustainability… but in December I would like to know the costs”
End-user Research in PMCII
PowerMatching City
Carina Wiekens, PhD
c.j.wiekens@pl.hanze.nl
